BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No: 448/2001 Filed on 1/11/2001

Dated : 31..03..2010

Complainant:

S. Seetharaman, T.C.37/1706, Punnakkal Road, Fort – P.O., Trivandrum.

(By Adv. K. Sudarsana Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The General Manager, Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. The Manager, Deedi Automobiles, 'Two Wheels Exchange Shope', Old Sreekanteswaram Road, Ayurveda College Jn., Trivandrum.

   (By Sri. C.P. Bhadrakumar)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 10..11..2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..02..2010, the Forum on 31..03..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are the Managing Director and General Manager of Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram. The 3^rd opposite party is the Manager of 'The Two Wheeler Exchange Shope' of Deedi Automobiles at Ayurveda College Junction, Thiruvananthapuram. On 1/1/1999 the complainant exchanged his scooter bearing Reg.No.KLF.9020 through the opposite parties' 'Two Wheeler Exchange Shope' and purchased another vehicle from them bearing No.KL 01/P 1497. At the time of exchange the 3^rd opposite party had issued a receipt No.0170 to the complainant. At the time of the said exchange the 3^rd opposite party had obtained signed T.O Forms and all connected records from the complainant and also assured him that the ownership of the vehicle exchanged would immediately be transferred in the name of the new transferee. The 3^rd opposite party also promised to indemnify the complainant if any loss is sustained to him due to any lapse on his part in transferring the ownership. In the month of June 2001 the Neyyardam Sub Inspector summoned the complainant to the Police Station and told him that the vehicle KDF.9020 has been involved in an accident and that he was summoned as he was the owner of the vehicle. These developments were duly intimated to the opposite parties and they again assured the complainant that there would be no problem regarding ownership of the said vehicle, but it was false and misleading. In August 2001 the complainant received a notice from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara and on enquiry it was learnt that the exchanged scooter (KLF. 9020) has been involved in an accident and a claim petition has been filed against the complainant as the owner of the scooter. It is now clear that the opposite parties have failed to comply with their promise and the assurances to the effect that the ownership would be transferred immediately to the transferee. The complainant is now unnecessarily dragged into a court of law and he is constrained to engage a lawyer to conduct the case. The opposite parties collected separate fees from the complainant for the service rendered by them and as per their direction the complainant handed over all the records of the scooter and signed T.O Forms to the opposite parties. Hence they ought to have seen that it should not turn out to be detrimental to the interest of the complainant and to see that the ownership of the transferred vehicle is duly changed in the name of the transferee. The failure on the part of the opposite parties to do so amounts to deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Actually they were adopting unfair and deceptive method for canvassing their business. The complainant is unnecessarily been dragged into a court of law and is forced to suffer financial loss and mental agony because of the negligence and disservice on the part of the opposite parties.

2. The opposite parties in this case is M/s. Deedi Automobiles and 2 others. They filed version contending the entire allegations of the complaint levelled against them. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant had approached the 3^rd opposite party and exchanged his scooter and purchased a new one and to that effect a receipt was also issued by the 3^rd opposite party and up to that level the averments in the complaint are admitted. The opposite parties stated that at the time of exchange of the scooter the complainant was told by the 3^rd opposite party that the T.O Forms and the connected records of the scooter will be handed over to the purchaser of the same and no other assurance was given to the complainant by the 3^rd opposite party. Accordingly the scooter was sold to one Mr. Prabhakaran Nair, Chothy, Thazhathu Madathil Veedu, Vattavila on 24/3/1999 and all records including the T.O Forms were handed over to the purchaser also. The said fact was duly intimated to the complainant and the name and address of the transferee was also conveyed to him. The further allegations in the complaint that the 3^rd opposite party had assured the complainant that the ownership of the scooter will be immediately transferred to the transferee and the complainant will be indemnified by the opposite parties in the event of him sustaining any loss etc concerning the transfer of the vehicle etc are absolutely false. The opposite parties further submitted that the opposite parties are in no way responsible for any such events if at all happened as alleged in the complaint. If at all any grievance is there for the complainant as alleged he has to seek his remedy against the said transferee before a court of law. The opposite parties only acted as an agent of the complainant for selling the scooter and hence they are not responsible for any loss if any sustained by the complainant.

3. In this case the complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavits in lieu of evidence. The complainant has produced 2 documents, that documents were marked as Exts. P1 and P2.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

4. Points (i) & (ii) : The case of the complainant is that he exchanged his scooter through the opposite parties 'The Two Wheeler Exchange Shope' and purchased another vehicle from them for which Ext. P1 receipt was issued. Signed T.O Form and other connected records were also obtained from him. But the opposite parties sold the exchanged vehicle to another person without making sure that the ownership would be changed in the purchaser's name. Later the vehicle got involved in an accident and as the ownership was not changed, one Motor accidental claim case was filed against the complainant. To prove that the complainant has produced the summons issued from the MACT, Neyyattinkara. The Summons was marked as Ext. P2 here. The complainant alleges that he has been unnecessarily charged into a court of law and is forced to suffer great financial and mental agony because of the negligence and deficient service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties stated that they have not given any assurance to the complainant to transfer the ownership in the name of the transferee. But they admitted that they have collected the signed T.O Forms from the complainant. In this case the complainant had handed over the vehicle and its papers to the opposite parties and he obtained its price from the opposite parties. Hence it is the duty of the opposite parties to clear the papers in connection with the transfer of the vehicle. If the opposite parties had duly transferred the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the transferee, the complainant would not be dragged into unnecessary case as a respondent.

5. In the version the opposite parties admitted that they have obtained signed blank T.O Forms from the complainant, this means that the ownership will be transferred in the name of the prospective transferee by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant believed that the opposite parties would change the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the transferee. But the opposite parties' did not do it properly, for that reason only the complainant was dragged into the MACT case as a respondent. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for his financial loss and mental agony for the unwanted case. In the above circumstance the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 9% annual interest from the date of the order shall be paid to the complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of March, 2010.

BEENA KUMARI.A

MEMBER

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

ad.

O.P.No. 448/2001

APPENDIX

1. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of the receipt bearing No.0170 issued from the two wheeler exchange shope.

P2 : Original summons

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties documents : NIL

PRESIDENT